#Expert opinion

AIEpoch AI estimates that the cheapest cost of reaching a given benchmark score has fallen about 13× per year over the past five years, faster than DNA sequencing, compute, lithium batteries, or electricity. Its example: a 75% GPQA Diamond score that cost about 30 cents per question with o3 in January 2025 cost $0.0004 per question with GPT-5.6 Luna under 18 months later. The authors caution that benchmarks are imperfect proxies for market prices, and the decline rate slows over time.

Why it matters: The source compares AI price declines with other transformative technologies using benchmark-based cost estimates, giving readers a measured sense of how fast cost per capability is falling.

AIAnthropic reports that Claude solved a nine-loop scattering amplitude problem in planar N=4 super-Yang-Mills, surpassing the previous eight-loop record set by SLAC's Lance Dixon and collaborators. Working largely unsupervised for days from a single prompt, at a total cost of a few thousand dollars, Claude used methods developed by Dixon's group, and Dixon independently verified the result.

Why it matters: The post shows Claude solving a nine-loop physics calculation beyond the previous eight-loop record, verified independently, which bears on AI use in theoretical physics research.

AIMETR's preliminary evaluation concludes that Claude Opus 5.5 likely gives slightly higher AI R&D productivity uplift than Fable 5.1 but is unlikely to fully automate AI R&D. The evaluation used five capability tasks over 10 business days of API access, and METR says Anthropic reviewed and edited the summary before sign-off.

Why it matters: The report separates two claims about AI R&D acceleration and discloses that Anthropic reviewed the summary, which helps readers weigh its independence and evidence.